ILLEN MEMORIAL ART MUSEUM BULLETIN )BERLIN COLLEGE FALL 1972

, (

ALLEN MEMORIAL ART MUSEUM BULLETIN

VOLUME XXX, NUMBER 1 FALL 1972

Contents

Pompeo Batoni's Portrait of John Wodehouse by Anthony M. Clark ----- 2

The Dating of Creto-Venetian Icons: A Reconsideration in Light of New Evidence by Thalia Gouma Peterson - 12

A Sheet of Figure Studies at Oberlin and Other Drawings by Daniele da Volterra by Paul Barolsky ----- 22

Notes Oberlin-Ashland Archaeological Society 37 Baldwin Lecture Series 1972-73 37 Loans to Museums and Institutions 37 Exhibitions 1972-73 40 Friends of Art Film Series - - - - 41 Friends of Art Concert Series 41

Friends of the Museum ----- 42

Published three times a year by the Allen Art Museum, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. $6.00 a year, this issue $2.00; mailed free to members of the Oberlin Friends of Art. Printed by the Press of the Times, Oberlin, Ohio. 1. Pompeo Batoni, John Wodehouse Oberlin Pompeo Batoni's Portrait of John Wodehouse

In March, 1761, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo wrote Count Algarotti regarding sketches of his for a commission for S. Marco in : 'You then do me the pleasure of sending me the news of Batoni's indulgence about the small sketches. . ."' One wonders what Mengs, just finishing his Villa Albani ceiling, thought of Tiepolo's sketches. Three decades younger than Tiepolo, Mengs was now a famous painter whose opinion would have carried weight. Both Batoni (1708-1787) and Mengs were favored by the new Venetian pope, Clement XIII (whom they painted in 1760 and 1758 respectively), and by this pope's dis­ tinguished family; also, both artists at least indirectly can be connected with the Venetian church in Rome, S. Marco at Palazzo Venezia. Batoni, a decade younger than Tiepolo, apparently admired the Venetian paint­ er. Mengs sailed from in October, 1761 to become court painter at Madrid, to be followed by Tiepolo the next year. Mengs' absence from Rome until 1771, and again from 1773 to 1777 (he died in Rome in 1779), was not unfavorable to Pompeo Batoni, who remained unrivalled as the most famous native Italian master. From the 1740's Batoni had been the leading painter in Rome. By 1754 most connoisseurs considered him the finest painter in Italy and from this year he had become also Italy's prime portrait painter. In 1759 Winckelmann, Mengs' friend, gave his extraordinarily high praise to Batoni's Wyndham portrait, and, despite the slightly later puffs of

"Ella poscia mi fa il piacere di avanzarmi le Notizie del Compatimento datto dal sig. Battoni di Roma alii piccioli Modelli . . ." (P. G. Molmenti, Tiepolo, Paris, 1911, 24 and 41). Mengs' more "modern" portraits, the German artist was never truly to surpass the Italian as the portraitist. Yet, as if shepherding Batoni away from prominence in subject painting and towards a more exclusive trade in portraits (to the advantage of Mengs), Winckelmann, in January 1761, tore Batoni's latest historical masterpiece, The Departure of Hec­ tor, to pieces.2 The handsome Batoni portrait at Oberlin (fig. I)3 bears the inscribed date of 1762, and this is possibly correct for its commission. The subject is also given in the inscription although this cannot be dated earlier than 1797 when John Wodehouse (1741-1834), a Baronet's son, was created 1st Baron Wodehouse of Kimbcrley in appreciation of his serv­ ice as Member of Parliament for Norfolk (1784-1797). Wodehouse appears as a stylish and prosperous twenty-one year old on the Grand Tour; his main memorial, aside from his title, is the Batoni portrait. I know little else about him excepting a September, 1771 report from Rome that a certain (possibly the same) "Mr. Wodehouse is still in Sicily,"4 and his presence in Rome, as we shall see, in 1764. Wodehouse is shown in the portrait at an imaginary site in the Roman Campagna, leaning on a plinth which supports the pedestal of a marble vase with a Bacchic relief otherwise unknown to me. He wears a sword, the hilt of which is silver parcel-gilt, and a suit of deep ultra­ marine with gold trim, fresh lace, and a loose black cravat. Wodehouse also wears his own hair, mouse-colored except as it moves blonde into the light and brown into deeper shadow. The face is lively and fleshy, pink and healthy, and looks away, rather ironical and appetitive, with blue eyes under cocked blonde brows. It is a secure and telling likeness of a self-assured, mature but very young man. Although there is ob­ vious accuracy in the likeness one can tell very little about the man, who is shown favorably and typically. The typicality seems to me to depend on what Professor Gombrich might wish to call a "conceptual" rather than an "evocative" presentation; on Batoni's accurate flattery; and on Wodehouse's youth. Subtly, learnedly and genially wrought, the portrait has force and animation but avoids "psychological depth" or at least skepticism. The vivid and careful craft may itself possess

2 For a more detailed account of Batoni's career and his portrait practices, see the author's essay in: Pompeo Batoni, Catalogo della Mostra, Lucca 1967, pp. 23-50. 3 Ace. No. 70.60. Oil on fabric, 53W"x38Vi" (138x100 cm.). Sale in London (Sotheby), December 2, 1964, lot 10, the property of the Earl of Kimberley (bought in?); Ferdinando Peretti, London. 4 Letter from James Byres in Rome to Sir William Constable, 30 Sept., 1771, in East Riding Co. Records Office, Beverly, Yorks. I owe this reference to the kind­ ness of Mr. G. W. Beard. 2. Pompeo Batoni, Georgina, Countess Spencer Courtesy of the Earl Spencer, Althorp 3. Pompeo Batoni, David Garrick Ashmolean, Oxford psychological depth, and somehow one does not feel that Wodehouse bought only a fashionable or frivolous portrait. We know the material origins of the Oberlin portrait as far as its sitter, artist and date are concerned. We also know that it was on view in Batoni's showroom on the 6th of May 1764, in the artist's palace several blocks from Piazza di Spagna where it was painted. On that date another British Grand Tourist, James Martin, recorded in his travel diary:5 "wt. to Battoni's the Portrait Painter & saw7 some very strong Likenesses of Lady Spencer, Mrs. Macartey, Mr. Garrick, Mr. Wod- house [sic], ac [etc.]. He has also painted an excellent Picture represent­ ing Hercules between Virtue & Pleasure." On May 7th Martin went about Rome (and back to Batoni's) with Lord Exeter, William Chambers the architect, Abbe Grant, and others including Wodehouse. The "Macartey" portrait is lost; presumably it was of a Macarthy who accompanied his mother and Lord Exeter to Italy in 1763-64. The seated portrait of Georgina, Countess Spencer, signed and dated 1764, exists and is the same size as the Wodehmtse (fig. 2). The portrait of David Garrick (fig. 3) dates also to 1764, and hangs in the Ashmolean Museum. It is a smaller, more particular likeness than either Wode- house's or Countess Spencer's. The great actor's right hand, hanging over an illustrated volume of Terence, may be compared with Wode- house's left hand dangling over the plinth: they are contemporary cousins. Finally, the Hercules at the Crossroads (fig. 4) which Martin saw is the large picture then in progress (it is signed and dated 1765) and now in the Hermitage. The young English buck at Oberlin has obviously chosen a road different from that of the introspective hero. Batoni would have produced over a dozen full- and three-quarter length portraits in both 1762 or 1764 and about a half-dozen half-lengths. The latter would not necessarily have been cheaper — most of them were even more carefully detailed and more exquisitely fine than the Garrick. The superb 1762 three-quarter length Cardinal de Roche- chouart formerly in the New York Historical Society, or the 1764 half- length Archbishop Mansi, and the 1764 three-quarter length Edward, Duke of York, are all of the more studied, highly wrought variety which Batoni reserved for his grandest customers — and which was less appli­ cable to Wodehouse than to the Countess Spencer and David Garrick. The price, according to size, was probably the same for all customers, although the "fringe benefits" from the grandees, both direct and in­ direct, were considerable.

I owe this unpublished information to the very great generosity of Mr. Brinsley Ford. There are many varieties of Batoni poses and there is no dichotomy between what can be termed the more characteristic and the more in­ formal poses. Though popes and princes are raised occasionally to iconic heights, it is usually the attention and craft refinement that overwhelms the spectator before their portraits, and they are carefully observed and characteristically but quite informally posed. The matter of grace, so carefully arranged in eighteenth century art, perhaps obscures this point (as in the Countess Spencer's portrait), but it is nevertheless in Batoni faithful and true to experience. Although his portraits are more idealized and typical than those of the slightly more hard-boiled contemporary French and later British portrait painters, Batoni, with so many vacationing customers on his hands, was necessarily a master of informal poses. The credit due him for "natural" poses in outdoors or "realistic" settings has, however, been somewhat exaggerated, owing to ignorance of his Roman predecessors. Also, Batoni quite obviously depended on stock poses, which he handled with considerable social discretion (cleverly gauging the tolerance and ignorance of the consumer), although a computer could dispose of them in a wink. An arm extended and grandly relaxed, an arm akimbo, the head three-quarters turned, is obviously a generative structure with plenty of possibilities for a prosperous, distinguished and idle race, proud and pleased to be in Rome and among its cultural treasures. The more verti­ cal and demonstrative majesty of the Baroque parentage of this basic pose is obvious, and Batoni was aware of the portraits by Van Dyck of the ancestors of his British sitters. But the grandeur has been reduced and changed: the ceremony is no longer the imperious grandeur of the more than natural. Rather, the ceremony is the natural itself in its in­ formality; the haughty arrogance of the Baroque is gone or simply dis­ posed of and reposed. Poses very similar to that of the Oberlin portrait occur in Batoni full- and three-quarter lengths dating from 1755 to 1775. In fact, this pose, with an extended arm resting or holding and the other akimbo, is one of the several Batonian basic poses for portraits. The specific pose of the Wodehouse occurs, as far as 1 know, for the first time in this por­ trait, to recur about a dozen times thereafter with only the most minor variations. I know of two earlier portraits which rest the hand of the akimbo arm on the hip, knuckles in. An inferior portrait of John Monck, signed and dated 1764 and recently in the art market, is exactly the same in the pose, excepting a turn of the head. The pose is reversed in 1766 (Thomas Giffard) and 1775 (Duke of Hamilton), and is presented with modest variations in two full-lengths of 1767 (Lord Monstuart) and 1775 (Lord Haddo). John Wodehouse would have been proud to see that a 4. Pompeo Batoni, Hercules at the Crossroads Hermitage, Leningrad Pompeo Batoni, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick Landesmuseum, Brunswick very important sitter, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick, was painted in his pose in 1767, with only the change of a hand and better vases (fig. 5). The Oberlin portrait has another distinction. It is one of the very few partially unfinished portraits left by the meticulous Batoni. This is noticeable in the landscape at left, w7hich is only touched in, and in the stone vase which may not be brought to completion. What landscape is touched in is delightful, but its sketchiness is highly unusual and there are only two other Batoni portraits in any similar state: the fragmentary and unconcluded Self-portrait and the Vatican Gallery's Pius VI in which the drapery is only begun. The transparency of age and minor surface abrasions have revealed changes in the artist's intensions: penti- menti occur at least at the arm to the right and especially in its lace and wrist. Most of the portrait is exceptionally fresh, vigorously finished, and in excellent condition.

Anthony M. Clark The Minneapolis Institute of Arts

11

The Dating of Creto - Venetian Icons: A Reconsideration in Light of New Evidence

In an article published in a previous issue of this Bulletin, I placed an icon of the Hodegetria (fig. 1) in the Allen Memorial Art Museum within the context of Cretan and Creto- of the six­ teenth and seventeenth centuries.1 Since then, hitherto unknown archi­ val evidence has come to my attention which significantly changes most extant views on the origins of the , though it does not affect the established facts about its further evolution from the sixteenth century on (pp. 64-75). Because this new evidence also alters the suggested date of the Oberlin icon and the icon of the Virgin of the Passion in the Prince­ ton Museum, I shall briefly summarize and discuss its more general implications for Cretan painting and its more particular bearing on the dating of the two icons. This evidence is the result of the extensive archival research of Mario Cattapan, who consulted the records of all the notaries of Candia (about seventy) in the archives of for the period c. 1271-1500, and the Archives of the Duke of Candia. He was able to find approxi­ mately 400 legal acts regarding painters, and has drawn up a list of a total of one hundred and fifty painters cited by name in the documents and active in (mainly Candia)." Thirty-five of these painters were active in the fourteenth century and one hundred and fourteen during the fifteenth. For most of them Cattapan discovered several legal acts,

1 "Crete, Venice, the 'Madonneri,' and a Creto-Venetian Icon in the Allen Art Museum," AMAM Bulletin, XXV, 2, Winter 1968, 53-86. All subsequent references to this article will be cited in the text, in parentheses. 2 Mario Cattapan, "Nuovi documenti riguardanti pittori cretesi dal 1300 al 1500," Pepragmena toil B Diethnous Kritologikou Synethriou, III, Athens, 1968, 31- 45. I wish to thank Professor Doula Mouriki for bringing this article to my attention. Cattapan intends to publish his findings in a more extended form, including the texts of most of these documents, in a book. The texts of ten of these legal acts he publishes at the end of his article. 13 and for many a large enough number to establish a precise period of activity. He was not able to find any names of painters in those legal documents of the thirteenth century which he consulted, a fact which led him to conclude that Crete was not an active center of painting prior to c. 1300.3 The legal acts do not deal primarily with artistic matters. Some are contracts of sale, rentals, loans, and testaments; others deal with commissions.4 When published in their entirety they will throw a great deal of light on the everyday life and activities of painters of the period. An interesting and in part unexpected evidence provided by the acts is that a large number of painters active in Crete during the fourteenth century were from Venice. Two of the earliest painters are clearly Venetians (Michele and Ottorino Venier); several others are specifically cited as being from Venice (di Venezia); and still others have Italian- sounding names.5 This has led Cattapan to conclude that after c. 1300 "orientalizing" Venetian painters (i.e., Venetians working in a Byzan­ tine style) prevailed in Crete, and that the situation was reversed dur­ ing the sixteenth century when Cretans painting in a Byzantine style prevailed in Venice.6 He refers to the school in general as "Creto- Venetian" because he believes that the encounter and fusion of Cretan and Venetian elements occurred in Crete more than anywhere else and because within this school painters of Venetian and Cretan origin were in equal proportion, especially during the fifteenth century.7 Cattapan's findings place the origins of the Cretan School in the fourteenth century, show that by the fifteenth century it was well established, and prove that icons produced by Cretan and Venetian masters were very much in demand at that period. Only such a de­ mand could explain the existence of over one hundred painters in Crete during one century. If one considers that this is only a partial figure, since a large proportion of notarial documents have been lost (or have not as yet been rediscovered), the number becomes even more impres­ sive.8 The legal documents also show the importance of the close and special relation between Venice and Crete for the existence of the Cretan

3 Ibid., 34-35. 4 Ibid., 31. 5 Ibid., 37 (list of painters' names from 1303 to 1414). The question of the Greek or Italian origin of the various names will have to be decided by philologists. 0 Ibid., 34. 7 Ibid., 31, 34. 8 The great demand for icons by the end of the fifteenth century is documented by an act of 1498 in which a Venetian merchant forcefully complains that the icons promised by the painter Giovanni Salivara w7ere not delivered. See ibid., 33, and 45, Act 10. 14 School. I stressed this importance in my previous article, and even suggested that without it the Cretan School would have stagnated within the second half of the sixteenth century (pp. 61-67, n. 43). This special relation is consonant with historical and cultural evidence. Crete had been under Venetian domination from 1204 and Venice had been under Byzantine cultural influence for centuries. By the fifteenth century Venice had a lively Greek colony constantly reinforced by the migra­ tion of Greeks and Cretans, both before and after the fall of Constan­ tinople (1453). By the end of the century the Greek colony had become one of the largest and most significant contingents of foreigners in the city and at the same time Venice had become the principal European center for Greek studies, with Cretan men of letters playing an im­ portant role.9 The great activity of painters working in a Byzantine or byzantinizing manner during this same period is part of this cultural ambience. It would seem then that the Cretan School grew out of a continuous tradition which goes back to the fourteenth century and Palaeologan painting and that this tradition was maintained primarily through the painting of icons, during a period when the wealth and opportunity for extensive patronage of frescoes did not exist (late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries). It is out of this school of icon painters that the great Cretan mural painters of the sixteenth century emerge.10 The continuity of the tradition, however, also poses some new problems, for the emergence of the Cretan School can no longer be viewed as a clearly definable and delimitable phenomenon, that can be differentiated from the survival of the Byzantine style in Venice during the fourteenth cen­ tury, as I previously maintained (pp. 64-67, 74-75). In fact, the role of Venice as one of the most important and most continuous points of artistic contact between East and West, assigned to it by scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, now is firmly sub­ stantiated.11 And in this role, during the fifteenth century, it acquires

9 Deno Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1962, 41-52; and by the same author, Byzantine East and Latin West, New York, 1966, 114-127. 10 That good icon painters existed as early as, if not earlier than, the mural painters has been demonstrated by Chatzidakis in a study of a group of five icons in the monastery of Dionysiou, Mount Athos, dated 1542 and signed by Euphrosynos the priest. (See "0 Zographos Euphrosynos," Kritika Chronika, X, 1956, 273- 291.) Chatzidakis also attributes a group of icons at Mount Athos to the Cretan mural painter Theophanes (active 1527-1559), in the past considered more or less the founder of Cretan painting. (See "Recherches sur le peintre Th^ophane le Cretois," D.O.P., XXIII-XXIV, 1970, 323-327.) 11 As for example, Kondakov, Likhachev, Schweinfurth, Bettini, and Millet. I am not suggesting that we should readopt the views of these scholars, but rather 15 paramount importance. However, I do not think that the terms Italo- Greek (for fourteenth and fifteenth century icons) versus Italo-Cretan or Cretan (for sixteenth and seventeenth century ones), used by some scholars to distinguish successive chronological phases, are particularly helpful.12 Nor should the Cretan or Creto-Venetian School again be identified w7ith the Maniera Greca or be called Italo-Byzantine as was done earlier (pp. 74-75, n. 59, 60). But in the future the strong artistic relationship between Crete and Venice, and the importance of Crete as an artistic center during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, will have to be given its due place within the context of Palaeologan painting. Also, the existence of the Cretan School in the fifteenth century will have to be recognized and more closely investigated. For clearly the origins of the Cretan School are Byzantine and not post-Byzantine. Because of the great importance of Venice for the formation of this school and its survival into the seven­ teenth century (Crete fell to the Turks in 1669), it may be that the school as a whole should be called Creto-Venetian. This appellation would give due recognition to the contribution of Venice, but would also stress the dominant role of Crete and Cretan painters in the survival of the Byzantine tradition.13 A clearer picture of the development of the school will emerge as icons signed by painters whose activity is secure­ ly dated by the notarial acts are identified and published. In many cases icons which had been thought to belong to the sixteenth or even early seventeenth century will have to be redated.14 The phases or

that we should reconsider some of their valid points within the context of the knowledge and evidence acquired in the last four decades and no longer dis­ miss the importance of the Creto-Venetian (or Italo-Cretan, as it is often re­ ferred to) School. See for example Victor N. Lazarev, "Byzantine Icons of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries," Burlington Magazine, LXXI, 1937, 294; and by the same author "Saggi sulla pittura veneziana dei sec. xiii-xiv, La maniera greca e il problema della scuola cretese," II, Arte Veneta, XX, 1966, 43-61. Ibid. 13 It seems that Crete attracted painters from all parts of the remaining lands of the Byzantine Empire as early as the fourteenth century. A number of painters active in Candia during this period were from Constantinople and Cyprus as well as from Venice. See Cattapan, "Nuovi documenti," 37-38; and Manolis Chatzidakis, lcones de Saint Georges des Grecs et la collection de I'lnstitut Hel- lenique de Venise, 1962, XXXVIII. 14 Cattapan, "Nuovi documenti," 32-33, 35, identifies signed works by five paint­ ers, all of the second half of the fifteenth century (Andreas and Nicholas Ritzos, Antonios Papadopoulos, , and Fra' Antonio de Nigroponte of Candia), three of whom had previously been placed in the sixteenth century. Karoline Kreidl-Papadopoulos, "Die Ikonen im Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien," Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, LXVI, 1970, 60, identifies the work of one more painter active during the last decades of the century, Nicholas Zafuris. 16 stages within the evolution of the School from the fourteenth into the sixteenth century will then become more easily identifiable. However, it is, I believe, a mistake to differentiate these too sharply, for they follow basically a very similar pattern.15 So far the most important relocation in chronology, on the basis of the notarial acts, is that of and his son Nicholas. Andreas' signed icons have been known for many years, but since most of them are not dated his period of activity has been placed anywhere from the eleventh to the late sixteenth century (pp. 51-59, 81-82). Cat­ tapan, however, discovered some twenty legal documents, spanning a period from 1421 to 1499, concerning Andreas and Nicholas.16 On the basis of these he establishes a secure chronology for the two paint­ ers and shows that Andreas Ritzos was active c. 1451-1492 and that Nicholas, who signed an icon of the Deesis at Sarajevo as Nicholas Ritzos the "son of Master Andreas," was active c. 1486-1499.17 Two of the legal acts involving Andreas are extremely interesting for the in­ sights into the historical-cultural background of the period. In one the painter is endorsed by his father, in January 1452, to sail as balistarius in the Venetian galley that was departing to participate in the defense of and Constantinople.18 In the other, dated 1477, the painter Giovanni Acotanto agrees to sell to Andreas his "fifty-four examples of various figures of saints" (i.e., models and sketches) with the option of buying them back. Acotanto had inherited a part of these "models" from his brother, who also was a painter.19 Evidently Giovanni, a well-

15 Kreidl-Papadopoulos, ibid., 64, makes too sharp a distinction between sixteenth and fifteenth century Cretan painting. 16 Cattapan, "Nuovi documenti," 32. At the end of his article he publishes the texts of four of these acts, two involving Andreas (dated 1452 and 1477) and two involving Nicholas (dated 1491 and 1492). 17 Cattapan, ibid., 32, suggests that Andreas was born c. 1420-21, since his triptych in the Church of S. Nicola in Bari is dated 1451 and in an act of 1452 he is referred to as "painter" (ibid., 42, text of Act 3). He assumes that Nicholas must have been born c. 1460 because before 1486 he had already married. Cattapan has also found the names of members of the family of Andreas and Nicholas (e.g., parents and wives). 18 Cattapan, ibid., 33, 42, Act 3. He observes that one other painter did the same thing. 19 Ibid., 3, 42-43, Act 4. Cattapan lists Angelo Acotanto as active 1438-1450, and Giovanni Acotanto 1436-1477 (see ibid., 38). For these two painter brothers see also M. I. Manousakas, "E Diathiki tou Aggelou Akotantou (1436), Agnos- tou Kritikou Zographou," Deltion tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etairias, II, 1960-61, 139-151. Manousakas publishes the will of Angelo Actoanto which, he proves, was drafted in 1436, before Angelo was to undertake a voyage to Con­ stantinople. At the time of his departure his wife was expecting a child, and in his will Angelo states, "And if the child which will be bom is male, I wish him first to learn letters and then the art of painting; and if he learns it [the 17 known teacher and painter, was Ritzos' own teacher.20 Since so little is known about the practices of Byzantine painters this kind of infor­ mation which attests to a direct transference of artistic wealth from one painter to another is very interesting and gives added insight into the manner in which the Byzantine artistic tradition was preserved over the centuries. Though wc do know of later instances of such a trans­ ference (p. 75, n. 61), these, to my knowledge, are the earliest docu­ mented cases.21 In my previous article I discussed the close stylistic and icono- graphic relation of the Oberlin Hodegetria (fig.l) and the Princeton Virgin of the Passion to the work of Andreas Ritzos (pp. 76-85). I sug­ gested that the Princeton icon was painted by someone very close to Andreas, possibly even his son Nicholas, whereas the Oberlin icon, though based on Andreas' Virgin of the Passion, was probably done a generation later on Italian soil. At the time I had not seen Andreas' triptych in S. Nicola at Bari (fig. 2), which, according to Cattapan, is dated 1451. And within the context of what was known about the Cretan School, I felt that I could not place Andreas' activity any earlier than c. 1540, though I was fully aware of his strong ties to the Palaeolo- gan style of mural painting (pp. 81-84). This affected my dating of both the Princeton and the Oberlin icons. Now on the basis of the dates firmly established for Andreas' activity and for that of his son, I believe that the Princeton icon should be placed within the last quarter of the fifteenth century and the Oberlin icon c. 1500. I am aware of the ten- uousness of stylistic criteria as a basis for dating late Byzantine and post-Byzantine icons. However, for the many icons of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries which are unsigned and undated the only guidance will remain their relation to the work of painters whose dates are well established and by whom a group of works are known. Andreas Ritzos is such a painter.

art of painting] I leave him my designs and all my things pertaining to art; if he does not learn it then I leave my designs, in other words my sketches and all things of art, to my brother John." (For the Greek text, see Manoussakas, ibid., 147.) 20 According to documentary evidence, Acotanto had several students (Cattapan, ibid., 33, 40, 44). One of these, Antonios Papadopoulos, was apprenticed to Acotanto for five years, at the age of fourteen. It should be remembered that one signed work of Papadopoulos is known. 21 Cattapan cites many other instances of master and student relationships among the painters whose names he found in the legal documents. He also observes that these painters in general had workshops, organized themselves into small societies, and received disciples ("Nuovi documenti," 32, 35, 40). For a later instance of the transference of models, see Andreas Xyngopoulos, Schediasma tis Thriskeftikis Zographikis meta tin Alosin, Athens, 1957, 268. IS W

22

c < 3. Euphrosinos, St. Peter Dionysiou, Mt. Athos The task of sorting out and placing within chronological limits these many unsigned and undated icons will remain difficult.22 The difficulties are compounded from the second half of the fifteenth cen­ tury onwards because of the eclectic nature of stylistic variants. The trends which exist during the sixteenth century are very similar to those that had occurred during the fifteenth: that is, on the one hand a strict adherence to Palaeologan prototypes and on the other various degrees of westernization that produced a mixed, hybrid style. This becomes very clear if one compares specific dated works, such as the figures of St. John the Evangelist and St. Nicholas of the Bari triptych by Andreas Ritzos (fig. 2) and the figures of St. Peter (fig. 3) and St. Paul at Mount Athos by Euphrosinos the Priest, dated 1542.23 These icons are almost one hundred years apart and yet they are astonishingly similar both because of their strict adherence to Palaeologan prototypes and because of their excellent quality. One difference between Creto- Venetian painters of the various centuries is their choice of Western prototypes. Clearly an icon emulating sixteenth century prototypes could not have been painted prior to that century. However, since such choices are basically of a very eclectic nature and vary in the works of painters active during the same period and even within the work of one painter, such as (p. 75, n. 61), they can only be used as broad guidelines.24 General trends, internal evidence, and the focal points provided by the work of strong and well-know7n artistic personalities whose period of activity is documented will remain the basic guidelines for sorting out the labyrinth of unsigned and undated Creto-Venetian icons which span a period of four centuries. Thalia Gouma Peterson The College of Wooster

22 Some of these difficulties have been stressed by, among others, Lazarev, "Saggi sulla pittura Veneziana," II, 49, who, however, completely dismisses the Cretan School of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a "retardataire and pro­ foundly decadent phenomenon" (ibid., 52) and rejects the terms Veneto-Cretan or Creto-Venetian {ibid., 57). 23 The Bari triptych represents the Virgin of the Passion in the center, inscribed with the usual epigram in Latin (pp. 57-61). This central panel is flanked by St. John the Evangelist (left) and St. Nicholas, painted on separate panels of ap­ proximately the same dimensions as the central one. The triptych as a whole is of excellent quality, and is in a good state of preservation. It is difficult to dis­ cern the date under the conditions for viewing: that is, the icon is placed on an altar, at least five feet away from the viewer. For a good color illustration of the triptych, see Vera Fortunati, ed., San Nicola, Bari, Bologna, n. d., p. 24. For Euphrosinos, see Chatzidakis, "Euphrosinos," 273-281. 24 For Damaskinos and his various westernized styles, see Xyngopoulos, Schedi- asma, 139-155, and Chatzidakis, lednes, 51-73. 21

A Sheet of Figure Studies at Oberlin and Other Drawings by Daniele da Volterra1

In the first part of this century, the eminent mid-sixteenth century Mannerist, Daniele da Volterra, was frequently treated by art historians as merely an epigone of . As a result, a large number of drawings rejected from the latter's oeuvre were conveniently given to Daniele, despite the fact that there was no basis for these reattributions.2 During the last decade, however, art historians have concentrated more closely on Daniele himself and have begun to clarify the characteristics of his drawing style. In recent years, Levie, Davidson, and Hirst have published a number of carefully worked figure studies in chalk from the 1540's and 1550's, which can now be seen as characteristic of Daniele's drawing style.3 Daniele's chalk style is therefore better understood, but there has been scarcely any published evidence of Daniele's pen and ink style. The two exceptions are Daniele's neglected sketch in the for the Orsini Chapel Deposition of Christ (fig. 4) and the recently iden­ tified sketch in Hamburg for the Raising of the Dead Man (fig. 5), also

Most of the drawings published here were first connected with, or attributed to, Daniele by Dr. Konrad Oberhuber. I am grateful to Dr. Oberhuber for per­ mitting me to publish these drawings here and for his helpful suggestions. I also wish to thank Mr. Philip Pouncey for allowing me to publish two chalk studies which he connected with Daniele (figs. 3, 8). Most of these attributions to Daniele w7ere rejected by S. Levie, Der Maler Daniele da Volterra 1509-1566 (Cologne, 1962), 157ff. S. Levie, "Drie Figuren uit de fresco's in de Orsini-kapel van Daniele da Vol­ terra," Album discipulorum aangeboden aan Prof. dr. J. G. van Gelder (Utrecht, 1963), 55-61; B. Davidson, Mostra di disegni di e la sua cerchia (, 1966), pp. 72-74, with attributions to Daniele by Mr. John Gere; M. Hirst, "Daniele da Volterra and the Orsini Chapel-I, The Chronology and the Altar-piece," The Burlington Magazine, CIX (1967), 498-509; and B. David­ son, "Daniele da Volterra and the Orsini Chapel-II," The Burlington Magazine, CLX (1967), 553-561. 23 originally in the same chapel.4 It is therefore of particular interest that a sheet of studies at Oberlin (fig. 1) and three other pen and ink draw­ ings (figs. 6-7, 9) have recently come to light which can be attributed to Daniele. In the Oberlin sheet (fig. 1), the angular calligraphy and the effects of light and shadow echo the drawing style of Peruzzi, under whom Daniele studied in Siena during the mid-1530's."' The highly ornamen­ tal aspects of the calligraphy in the Oberlin sheet also recall the draw­ ing style of Perino del Vaga, the artist with whom Daniele worked im­ mediately after his arrival in Rome in the late 1530's.fi In particular, the decorative contours of the Oberlin figures echo the abstract drawing style which Perino had recently developed in Genoa and brought back to Rome.7 The style of the Oberlin figures also is related to that of a study at Chatsworth, probably for the last scene of Daniele's Massimo frieze, which is also deeply influenced by Perino's pen and ink style (fig. 2). The Chatsworth drawing was in fact recently published as the work of Perino himself.8 Yet while the calligraphy and figure types of this study recall Perino, its somewhat mechanical contours are clearly not by Perino's hand. They suggest, rather, the more labored approach of Daniele, who, Vasari tells us, drew with extreme difficulty from the very beginning of

4 The Louvre sketch (Inv. 1528) was published by M. Delacre, Les dessins de Michel-Ange (Paris, 1937), 203. The spectacular Hamburg sketch (no. 21237) was identified by Davidson, "Daniele da Volterra," 557. D Allen Art Museum no. 47.112, gift of Robert Lehman; pen and ink with wash, 240x378 mm. Listed as "North Italian," the drawing was connected with Daniele by Oberhuber. For Daniele's relationship to Peruzzi see G. Vasari, Le vite de' piix eccellenti pittori, scultori, ed architettori, ed. Milanesi, VII (Florence, 1880), 49. The sharp lighting effects in the Oberlin drawing can be compared to the similar effects in Peruzzi's drawing of The Tiber, illustrated by P. Pouncey and J. A. Gere, Italian Drawings . . . in the , Raphael and His Circle (London, 1962), pi. 218. 0 For Daniele's work with Perino, see Vasari, Le vite, VII, 51-52. Daniele helped Perino with decorations in the Massimi Chapel of S. Trinita, and he executed frescoes in San Marcello from Perino's design; see Davidson, Perino del Vaga e la sua cerchia, 46-48. Daniele also received the commission for the Massimo frieze through the intervention of Perino. 7 This style is exemplified in Perino's recently published study for a Lamentation of Christ in the Vienna Academy; see K. Oberhuber, "Observations on Perino del Vaga as a Draughtsman," Master Drawings, IV, 2 (1966), 170ff., pi. 42. 8 This drawing (Chatsworth no. 165) was related to the last scene of the Mas­ simo frieze and published as the work of Perino bv M. Hirst, "Perino and His Circle," The Burlington Magazine, CVIII (1966), 405. Hirst ("Daniele da Vol­ terra," 506, n. 29) later realized that the drawing is probably by Daniele. For the last scene of the Massimo frieze (Fabius in the Roman Senate), with which the Chatsworth drawing is connected, see H. Wurm, Der Palazzo Mas­ simo alle Colonne (Berlin, 1965), pi. 68. 24 2. Daniele da Volterra, Study probably for Fabius in the Roman Senate Chatsworth

» r

t 1 ' *. .' • L*>. tot V y U i I k I

3. Daniele da Volterra, Study of Seated Nudes British Museum his career.9 Indeed, the brittle line, dramatic lighting, drapery folds, and anatomical forms of the Chatsworth drawing are so closely related to the same features of Daniele's Orsini Chapel sketches (figs. 4-5) that the hard, Perino-like Chatsworth study can be attributed, with a reason­ able degree of certainty, to Daniele himself. The Oberlin sheet can be compared to the Chatsworth study in a number of respects. In the nude seen from in front, on the right of the Oberlin sheet, the stiff curly hair, schematic eyes, and leg muscles recall the same features of the figures in the left background of the Chatsworth study. The pointing hand of the nude at the upper left of the Oberlin sheet closely resembles the hand of the bearded old man in the Chats­ worth study, and the left hand of the nude lying at the upper right of the Oberlin drawing is comparable in form to the left hand of the seated foreground figure in the Chatsworth study. Draperies are also described in a similar way in both drawings. The relaxed, curling lines which seem to suggest draperies around the figure at the extreme right of the Oberlin sheet are reminiscent of the draperies suggested in front of the seated figure of the Chatsworth study. In addition, a use of thick con­ tours and a similar wash technique are common to both drawings. And it should also be observed that the rigid pen and ink strokes in both sheets are analogous to the stiff chalk lines in Daniele's drawings dur­ ing the 1540's.10 Indeed, both of these drawings relate in style to a group of un­ published figure studies in chalk in the British Museum that have been identified as Daniele's. The postures and details of anatomy in the ex­ ample illustrated here (fig. 3)11 resemble those of the seated background figures in the Chatsworth study. And there are strong analogies of form between the British Museum nudes and the Oberlin nudes. In both of these sheets, details of anatomy are suggested by short, ornamental strokes. These strokes, which are characteristic of Daniele's sketching style and which also appear in the Orsini Chapel drawings, are as labored in chalk as they are in pen and ink. In both the British Museum fore­ ground figures and in the Oberlin nudes, the legs are incisively defined, and the suggestion of facial details by abbreviated strokes in the British Museum sheet is similar in effect to the vague features of the Oberlin heads, especially those of the frontal figure. It should also be noted that

9 Vasari, Le vite, VII, 50. 111 See the drawings published in the articles cited above in note 3. 11 British Museum 1956-10-13-11, scored, black chalk, 150x186 mm. This drawing and other, similar unpublished drawings by Daniele in the British Museum w7ere attributed to Daniele by Mr. Philip Pouncey. Daniele's draw­ ings in the British Museum are being catalogued by Mr. John Gere. 26 just as the Oberlin drawing reflects the Sienese tradition of Peruzzi, the British Museum drawing, in its hatching technique and soft lighting effects, still reflects the influence of Daniele's first teacher in Siena, Sodoma.12 If we compare the Oberlin figures with the two Orsini Chapel studies (figs. 4-5) of the mid-1540's, we again find strong affinities of form. The same broken strokes that schematically define anatomy in the Oberlin study reappear in the nude figures of both Orsini Chapel studies. While the figures in both of these compositions are animated, they are nevertheless circumscribed by the deliberate contours that are so very typical of Daniele's draughtsmanship. It is of course difficult to compare figure studies with compositional sketches. Nevertheless, it would seem that the figures in the Oberlin sheet are neither as fluent nor as clearly defined as those in the Orsini Chapel studies. The Ober­ lin sheet seems to be closer to the Chatsworth study for the Massimo frieze, which was completed in the early 1540's. The emphasis on mus­ culature in the Oberlin drawing also closely resembles the same mus­ cular exaggerations in the figures of the frieze. Thus, we might tenta­ tively date the Oberlin drawdng, along with the Chatsworth drawing, in the early 1540's, before the Orsini Chapel studies.13 The figures in the Oberlin sheet, which appear to be random sketches, cannot be related to any existing work by Daniele. But a few general connections can be observed. The muscular, frontal figure in the Oberlin sheet is comparable to the Hercules in the first scene of the Massimo frieze.14 The nude at the upper left of the Oberlin sheet is close in design to the dead soldier in the third scene of the frieze.15 The posture of the nude lying at the center of the Oberlin sheet is generically comparable to that of the posture of the Virgin in the Louvre study for the Deposition of Christ (fig. 4), and the nude lying to the upper right, with his long, curly hair, resembles the dead Christ in the same draw-

12 Vasari, Le vite, VII, 49. Daniele's chalk drawing recalls various chalk draw­ ings by Sodoma such as the beautiful study in the Uffizi of St. Catherine; see R. H. Cust, Giovanni Antonio Bazzi (London, 1906), pi. 34. Sodoma's influence on Daniele's drawing style is also apparent in the latter's beautiful chalk study in the Uffizi (1138E) for the Orsini Chapel Deposition of Christ; see A. Forlani, I disegni italiani del Cinquecento (Venice, n. d.), pi. 75. The attribution of this drawing to Daniele has recently been rejected by Hirst ("Daniele da Volterra," 502, n. 23), despite its obvious authenticity. 13 The inception of work on the Massimo frieze is traditionally dated in the late 1530's; see Levie, Der Maler Daniele, 32. The more fully developed style of the last scenes of the frieze also suggests that work continued into the early 1540's. 14 Wurm, Der Palazzo Massimo, pi. 58. 15 Wurm, ibid., pi. 60. 27 4. Daniele da Volterra, Study for Deposition of Christ Louvre 5. Daniele da Volterra, Study for Raising of the Dead Man Kunsthalle, Hamburg ing. It should also be observed here that both of these lying figures sug­ gest the image of a dead Christ, and the figure to the right seems to be bent over in an attitude of grief. Could it be that these figures were preliminary thoughts for the never realized Pieta which was originally projected as the Orsini Chapel altarpiece, according to the contract of 1541?16 The Oberlin drawing and Daniele's other pen and ink studies dis­ cussed here can also be connected with two pen and ink drawings which represent continuous portions of a frieze. One of these drawings, in the Albertina, bears an attribution to Cavaliere d'Arpino (fig. 6); the other, in the Louvre, is given to Tibaldi (fig. 7).17 These drawings are clearly by the same hand, and they exhibit the same use of wash and orna­ mental calligraphy that we have already seen in the Oberlin sheet. The nude of the Louvre study (fig. 7), for example, is exceedingly close in posture, anatomical details, and facial expression to the nude at the cen­ ter of the Oberlin sheet (fig. 1). Both figures are described by Daniele's characteristically short, ornamental lines and wash technique. The nude figure of the Albertina drawing (fig. 6) can also be compared with the nude lying to the right of the Oberlin sheet. The descriptions of ana­ tomical details such as hands are quite similar in both drawings. The long pointed fingers in both of these frieze studies can be related to the same features in the Oberlin sheet as well as to Daniele's other pen and ink studies, and the flowing, yet brittle draperies of the frieze drawings and their overall animation of form resemble the Orsini Chapel studies (figs. 4-5). The intricate rhythmical effects, vitality, and sculptural emphasis of these drawings are closely related to the similar effects in Daniele's Orsini Chapel studies and to his great fresco of the Deposition of Christ. Again the brilliant light-dark relationships of the drawings appear to re­ flect Peruzzi's influence while the rhythmical effects of the calligraphy and the scheme of the frieze, with its frames, canopies, sphinxes, and

16 The contract was published by Hirst, "Daniele da Volterra," 498ff. 17 Albertina S. R. 874, pen and ink, with wash, 139 x 282 mm. Listed as Giuseppe Cesari by Wickhoff, "Die italienischen Handzeichnungen der Albertina, II. Theil," fahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhdchsten Kaiser- hauses, XIII (1892), 234. Louvre Inv. 9053, pen and ink with wash, 144x284 mm; listed as Tibaldi. These drawings were connected with Daniele by Oberhuber. The style of these drawings is admittedly close to that of Tibaldi, who worked with Daniele in the Rovere Chapel; see Vasari, Le vite, VII, 60. Yet in Ti- baldi's ink studies, which may owe something to Daniele, contours are more im­ pulsively drawn, conveying a greater degree of energy than one finds in Daniele's more mechanical sketches; see Davidson, Perino del Vaga e la sua cerchia, pis. 53-54. 30 6. Daniele da Volterra, Study for a Frieze Decoration Albertina

7. Daniele da Volterra, Study for a Frieze Decoration Louvre other figures, also depend on various works done by Perino del Vaga in the 1540's. The sculptural incrustation of surface in Daniele's frieze is related to the style of Perino's work in the Sala Paolina and the Sala di Psiche of the Castel Sant' Angelo, and the rhythmical effects of Daniele's design also resemble those of Perino's spalliera planned for the .18 In terms of Daniele's own work, the illusionistic draperies, sphinxes, scrolls, and ignudi of these sketches remind one of the similar vocabulary in Daniele's Farnese frieze, done in the late 1540's.19 The only elements in the drawing which are not in the frieze are the female figures and animals. It should not be forgotten here that when Vasari described Daniele's Farnese frieze he observed that it in­ cluded the Farnese impresa of unicorns in the laps of seated female figures.20 It seems possible, therefore, that the Lourve and Albertina drawings were preparatory ideas for the Farnese frieze and that it was on the basis of sketches such as these that Vasari recalled Daniele's decoration.21 Although we can only tentatively link these studies to the Farnese frieze, there is a chalk study in the Albertina which can definitely be connected with that commission (fig. 8). It is a compositional study for the scene of Pentheus and the Menads, which differs from the fresco itself only in small details.22 Here the brittle, sculptural figures and the overall composition suggest once again the influence of Peruzzi, partic­ ularly of his friezes in the Villa Farnesina. The seated figures in the foreground of this composition are close in type to the female figures in Daniele's frieze sketches (fig. 6-7). The excitement in the moving figures of this drawing recalls both the frieze sketches and the Orsini Chapel sketches. Daniele's painstaking draughtsmanship in this drawing re­ sembles that in his single figure studies from this period. Contours have

13 Davidson, ibid., no. 71r, pi. 62. 19 The general relationship of these drawings to the Farnese frieze was observed by Oberhuber. The dating of the Farnese frieze in the late 1540's was convinc­ ingly argued by M. L. Mez, "Una decorazione di Daniele da Volterra nel Pal­ azzo Farnese a Roma," Rivista d'arte, XVI (1934), 276ff., with illustrations. 20 Vasari, Le vite, VII, p. 56. It is worth noting that, although the animal in the Albertina drawing (fig. 6) appears to be a goat, Wickhoff identified it as a uni­ corn. 21 It is also possible that these drawings were made for the lost frieze in the scrit- toio of the Palazzo Aladama, also done for the Farnese; see Vasari, Le vite, VII, 56-57. -- Albertina S. R. 360, black chalk and wash, 240 x 558 mm; inscribed at the lower right, "Baccio Bandinelli." The attribution to Bandinelli was accepted by Wickhoff, "Die italienischen Handzeichnungen," 206. The drawing was con­ nected with Daniele's frieze by Pouncey. Daniele's fresco, Pentheus and the Menads, is illustrated by Mez, "Una decor­ azione di Daniele de Volterra," fig. 5. 32

9. Daniele da Volterra, Study for Holy Family with Saints Albertina the mechanical exactness of traced lines, and shadows are described by razor-sharp hatch marks which flatten the figures into decorative forms. The highly mechanical character of this drawing makes it difficult to discern its precise stylistic roots, but Dr. Oberhuber has pointed out Parmigianino's influence in this drawing. Daniele's brittle draughtsman­ ship is as alien to the spirit of Parmigianino as it is to the spirit of Perino. Yet the flat, nude figures in the background of the Albertina study seem to reflect Daniele's knowledge of similar, although more graceful, figures in a number of Parmigianino's studies with subjects from ancient myth­ ology.23 The style of this compositional study for the Farnese frieze is very close to that of another pen and ink study which can also be attributed to Daniele, a study for a Holy Family with Saints, likewise in the Al­ bertina (fig. 9).24 This drawing cannot be connected with any known works by Daniele, but its illusionistic altar table suggests that it was a study for an altar-piece or for a fresco on a chapel wall behind an altar table. The drawing can be dated with a reasonable degree of certainty in the 1550's on the basis of its Michelangelesque figure style and its severe design which remind one of Daniele's Rovere Chapel decora­ tions from this period.25 The illusionistic altar table of the drawing is similar to the one in the Rovere Chapel Assumption of the Virgin; the stately columns behind the Holy Family are similar to those in the Rovere Chapel Presentation of Christ; the imposing staircase in the drawing recalls the steep staircase in the Presentation of the Virgin in the same chapel; and the geometrical stringency of Daniele's compo­ sition recalls the equally stringent design of Daniele's Massacre of the Innocents, again in the same Chapel.26 The figures in this drawing are stiffer and more abstract than those in Daniele's earlier work, and the decorative effect of the composition is more rigid than it was in his work

23 For example, A. E. Popham, The Drawings of Parmigianino (New York, 1953), pis. LX-LXIH. 24 Albertina S. R. 706, pen and ink, with wash and black chalk underdrawing, 485 x 324 mm. Listed as Federico Zuccaro by Wickhoff, "Die italienischen Handzeichnungen," 227. The drawing was connected w7ith Daniele by Ober­ huber. 25 These frescoes are traditionally dated around 1550; see Levie, Der Maler Daniele, 97ff. 26 These frescoes are illustrated by F. Sricchia Santoro, "Daniele da Volterra," Paragone, 213 (1967), figs. 24ff. As in the Rovere Chapel frescoes, there is a Raphaelesque element in the com­ position of the Albertina drawing. The Holy Family of the drawing is derived from the Madonna del divino amore, a work generally attributed to Raphael's shop; see S. J. Freedberg, Painting of the High Renaissance in Rome and Flor­ ence, II (Cambridge, Mass., 1961), pi. 450. 35 of the 1540's.27 The very severity and rigidity of this study mark it as representative of Daniele's last and most mechanical phase as an artist.28 The drawings attributed to Daniele here are of considerable im­ portance, for they indicate that Daniele's range as a draughtsman is far greater than has previously been supposed. They still reflect the Sienese influences of Sodoma and Peruzzi, although Daniele sought to emulate the more monumental and fashionable art in Rome, especially of Michel­ angelo and Perino. Daniele did not draw with the natural grace and facility of his teacher, Perino, but it should be stressed that the inven- zioni of his compositional studies are frequently bold and highly imagina­ tive. They exhibit, like his finest work in the Rovere and Orsini Chap­ els, the inventive qualities that distinguished Daniele as one of the major artists in Rome during the middle years of the sixteenth century.

Paul Barolsky University of Virginia

27 The decorative effect of the composition is highly contrived. The figures are arranged on the staircase in w7hat appears to be, as Professor Sydney J. Freed- berg has suggested, a kind of linea serpentinata. The figures also might be compared in their arrangement with the spiraling Salomonic columns which ap­ pealed to the artists of the Roman Maniera. 2? Daniele produced relatively little during this final period in the 1550's and 60's. Vasari (Le vite, VII, 59ff.) tells us that Daniele worked w7ith increasing lentezza and difficolta during this last phase of his career. 36 Notes

Oberlin-Ashland Archaeological Society

The Oberlin-Ashland chapter of the Archaeological Institute of America will sponsor three lectures during the 1972-73 academic year: October 19, in Oberlin, Professor Richard C. Rudolph of the University of California at Los Angeles, "Archaeology in Communist China;" Feb­ ruary 13, at Ashland College, Professor David L. Thompson, University of Georgia, "The Artists of the Mummy Portraits;" April 4, in Oberlin, Elizabeth K. Ralph, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, "Two Dating Techniques for Archaeologists: C-14 and Thermolumi- neseence."

Baldwin Lecture Series 1972-73

The Baldwin seminar was given during November by Wolfgang Stechow, Emeritus Professor at Oberlin College, on "Rembrandt and the Bible." The two public lectures for the seminar were held on Novem­ ber 8 and 16 on "Rembrandt and the Old Testament" and "Rembrandt's Christ as Healer and Teacher."

Loans to Museums and Institutions

Jean Robert Ango, The Deluge, Copy after Michelangelo's "Flood" Dayton Art Institute, October 15-November 28, 1971 Exhibition: "French Artists in Italy, 17th to 19th Century" Hans Baldung (Grien), St. Sebastian B. 37 The Cleveland Museum of Art, May-June, 1972 Exhibition: "German Woodcuts of the Early Sixteenth Century" Julien Binford, Man with a Pipe Mary Washington College of the University of Virginia, Fredericksburg, April 7-May 1, 1971 Exhibition: "Julien Binford: Paintings — Drawings — " Hans Burgkmair, Maximilian on Horseback B. 32 Weisskunig Studying Political Science B. 80 The Cleveland Museum of Art, May-June, 1972 Exhibition: "German Woodcuts of the Early Sixteenth Century" 37 Caucasian, Kazak Rug Finch College Museum of Art, New York, October 29-December, 1972 Exhibition: "Kazak: Carpets of the Caucasus"

Jean-Baptiste-Simeon Chardin, Still Life with Rib of Beef University of Notre Dame Art Gallery, South Bend, Indiana, March 12-May 15, 1972 Exhibition: "Eighteenth Century France — a study of its art and civilization"

Claude-Louis Chatelet, Artist Sketching with the Abbe St.-Non Dayton Art Institute, October 15-November 28, 1971 Exhibition: "French Artists in Italy, 17th to 19th Century"

Albrecht Durer, St. Anthony B. 58 Madonna with a Monkey B. 42 Last Supper B. 53 University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, September 19- October 17, 1971 Exhibition: Diirer's Cities: Nuremberg and Venice"

Albrecht Durer, Last Supper B. 53 National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C, April 24-June 6, 1971 Exhibition: "Durer in America: His Graphic Work"

German (South), Allegory of Justice John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, Florida, January 27-February 27, 1972 Exhibition: "Central Europe 1600-1800"

William Hogarth, Portrait of the Architect Theodore Jacobsen Tate Gallery, London, December 2, 1971-February 6, 1972 Exhibition: "Hogarth"

Italian, 18th Century, Imaginary View of Rome University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, December 5, 1971-January 16, 1972 Exhibition: "Rome Through the Eyes of the 18th Century"

Alex Katz, Portrait of Ada Utah Museum of Fine Arts, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, January 7-February 7, 1971 Art Gallery, University of California, San Diego, February 24- April 14, 1971 38 Minnesota Museum of Art, St. Paul, July 16-October 3, 1971 Wadsworth Athenaeum, Hartford, November 10-December 31, 1971 Exhibition: "Alex Katz Retrospective"

Oskar Kokoschka, Portrait of Olda Sposalizio Osterreichische Galerie, Vienna, April-June, 1971 Exhibition: "Oskar Kokoschka"

Andrea Mantegna, Sea Gods University of Michigan Museum of Art, Ann Arbor, September 19- October 17, 1971 Exhibition: "Durer's Cities: Nuremberg and Venice"

Matharin Moreau, Greek Maiden Reclining on Chair J. B. Speed Museum, Louisville, Kentucky, November 1-December 5, 1971 Exhibition: "French Sculpture: The Years of Revolution, 1800-1900"

Horace Pippin, Harmonizing ACA Galleries, New York, February 22-March 11, 1972 Exhibition: "Four American Primitives"

Johann Heinrich Roos, Abraham and Sara before Abimelech John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art, Sarasota, Florida, January 27-February 27, 1972 Exhibition: "Central Europe 1600-1800"

Peter Paul Rubens, Marriage of St. Catherine Princeton University Art Museum, Princeton, New Jersey, October 1-31, 1971 Exhibition: "Peter Paul Rubens before 1620"

Hendrick Terbrugghen, St. Sebastion Attended by St. Irene Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, October 27, 1971- January 2, 1972 Exhibition: "Caravaggio and his Followers"

Federico Zuccari, The Lord Creating the Sun and Moon City Art Museum of St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, February 25- April 16, 1972 Exhibition: "Italian Drawings Selected from Midwest Collections"

39 Exhibitions 1972-73

Sept. 14-Oct. 22 A CENTURY OF FRENCH PAINTING: 1840-1940* Paintings of the French school, including works by Monet, Delacroix, Cezanne, Chagall, and Matisse.

Oct. 3 - 27 ART DECO: THE STYLE OF THE 20's AND 30's* Objects of art, jewrelry, ceramics, prints and books from 1920 to 1940, from the museum and Oberlin collections.

Nov. 8 - 26 REMBRANDT AND THE BIBLE* A selection of Rembrandt prints of Old and New Testa­ ment subjects, an exhibition held in conjunction with Pro­ fessor Wolfgang Stechow's Baldwin Seminar.

Nov. 10-Dec. 17 COMPUTER ART Prints and films by artists w7ho program and/or execute their work with the computer.

Dec. 1 -19 WILLIAM BLAKE'S ILLUSTRATIONS FOR THE BOOK OF JOB*

Jan. 10-30 ARTS OF NINETEENTH CENTURY CHINA* Textiles, ceramics, and enamels of the later Manchu period.

Jan. 10 - 30 ANSEL ADAMS: PORTFOLIO V* Ten photographs chiefly of nature subjects, made between 1936 and 1960, issued as a portfolio in 1970.

Feb. 15-March 18 THE NATURE OF BAROQUE LANDSCAPE* European paintings and drawings of the 17th century, in­ cluding works by , Mola, Hobbema, and Van Goyen.

April 2 - 22 OBERLIN ARTISTS A juried show7 of w7ork by students, faculty and townspeople of Oberlin. Works to be submitted betw7een March 20 and March 24.

April 28 - May 27 THREE YOUNG AMERICANS A biennial exhibition of the latest developments in con­ temporary art (artists to be announced).

Based primarily on the museum collection

40 Friends of Art Film Series

October 5 Philadelphia Story (George Cukor, 1940) Laura (Otto Preminger, 1944)

October 12 Cover Girl (Charles Vidor, 1944) Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945)

October 26 Children of Paradise (Marcel Carne, 1943-45)

February 12 Jammin The Blues (Gjon Mili, 1944) They Were Expendable (John Ford, 1945)

March 22 The Big Sleep (Howard Hawks, 1946) The Lady From Shanghai (Orson Welles, 1947)

April 5 Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948) Tight Little Island (Alexander Mackendrick, 1949)

Friends of Art Concert Series The Oberlin Community Chamber Singers under the direction of Carol Longsworth will present the Friends of Art Christmas concert in the sculpture court of the museum on Sunday evening, December 17. The chamber singers, who come from throughout Lorain County, will perform Benjamin Britten's Ceremony of Carols and a selection of other Christmas music. During the second semester at a date to be announced there will be a performance of the Javanese Gamelan under the direction of Molly Johnson. The gamelan is an ensemble of bronze gongs, xylophones, and pot gongs. 41 Friends of the Museum

BENEFACTORS contributions or bequests of $100,000 or more *MR. AND *MRS. JOSEPH BISSETT *R. T. MILLER, JR. *CHARLES L. FREER * CHARLES F. OLNEY *CHARLES M. HALL *MRS. F. F. PRENTISS MAX KADE FOUNDATION MRS. GALEN ROUSH THE SAMUEL H. KRESS FOUNDATION

PATRONS : contributions or bequests of $10,000 or more

*MARY A. AINSWORTH * ROBERT LEHMAN DR. ALFRED R. BADER ADELE R. LEVY FUND * GENEVIEVE BRANDT ROBERT M. LIGHT MR. AND MRS. PARKS CAMPBELL MR. AND MRS. HAIG M. PRINCE ESTATE OF SIR JACOB EPSTEIN *AD REINHARDT MRS. ELISABETH LOTTE FRANZOS MRS. EDNA G. REIZENSTEIN *EUGENE GARBATY PAUL ROSENBERG & Co. *MELVIN GUTMAN NORBERT SCHIMMEL IVAN B. HART MR. AND MRS. GUSTAV SCHINDLER *MRS. A. AUGUSTUS HEALY PAUL F. WALTER BARONESS RENE DE KERCHOVE MR. AND MRS. CLARENCE WARD LOYD H. LANGSTON *MR. AND MRS. R. M. WOODBURY

DONORS : contributions or bequests of $1,000 or more

FREDERICK B. ARTZ MRS. ALBERT BROD WALTER BAREISS ADELE BROWN MRS. RAYMOND M. BARKER JOHN J. BURLING *JUDGE MADISON W. BEACOM MR. AND MRS. H. HALL CLOVIS MRS. MARCEIXA LOUIS BRENNER *LOUIS E. DANIELS *MRS. DUDLEY BLOSSOM MR. AND MRS. THOMAS F. DERNBURG

Deceased 42 DR. R. C. DICKENMAN *MARY L. MCCLURE DONALD DROLL *MRS. ANDREW B. MELDRUM ROBERT E. EISNER *MRS. GERRISH MILLIKEN MR. AND MRS. ANDRE EMMERICH MRS. MARTA ABBA MILLIKIN MR. AND MRS. ARTHUR ERLANGER *MRS. CHARLES E. MONROE MRS. DONALD W. EVANS MRS. ANNALEE NEWMAN *FREDERIC NORTON FINNEY CLAES OLDENBURG *MRS. THELMA CHRYSLER FOY JOHN G. D. PAUL MRS. BERNICE CHRYSLER GARBISCH *EDWARD S. PECK, JR. J. PAUL GETTY LEONA PRASSE WILLARD B. GOLOVIN MR. AND *MRS. GEORGE B. ROBERTS BERNARD GREBANIER THEODORE SCHEMPP WINSTON GUEST MR. AND MRS. GEORGES SELIGMANN THE HONORABLE MRS. M. D. GUINNESS *A. AND *E. SILBERMAN MRS. JOHN HADDEN HELENA SIMKHOVITCH ELLEN H. JOHNSON MRS. KATHERINE B. SPENCER *HOMER H. JOHNSON *MR. NATE B. SPINGOLD MR. AND MRS. OWEN T. JONES WOLFGANG STECHOW DR. GEORGE KATZ *DR. AND *MRS. BRUCE SWIFT DAVID KLUGER MR. AND MRS. HARRY L. TEPPER MRS. KATHERINE KUH MRS. HELEN B. TOLLES *H. H. KUNG MRS. ANN TRYON DOUGLAS H. LANGSTON W. R. VALENTINER ESTATE DR. J. D. LANGSTON EDWIN C VOGEL MRS. JOSEPH LILIENTHAL JEAN VOLKMER MR. PHILIP LILIENTHAL *LUCIEN T. WARNER JACK LINSKY *PARRISH-WATSON *C. T. Loo MRS. FRED R. WHITE *DR. A. I. LUDLOW *MR. AND *MRS. JOHN YOUNG-HUNTER MRS. SEABURY MASTICK RICHARD H. ZINSER *MRS. MALCOLM L. MCBRIDE MR. AND MRS. TESSIM ZORACH

Deceased 43 Oberlin Friends of Art

IN MEMORIAM MEMBERSHIPS

Arietta M. Abbott Florence Jenney Jacob Franklin Alderfer Dr. Louis C. Johnson J. E. Axtz Dr. Frances E. Killoren Charles K. Barry Mrs. Hazel B. King Genevieve Brandt Mary Smith McRae E. Louise Brownback Fannie Bixler Murphy Mrs. Katherine L. Lewis Bushnell Julia Patton Howard C. Carter Richard L. Ripin Cyrus Alonzo Clark Raymond H. Stetson George Draper Coons Mrs. Henry Stanton Storrs Mrs. Maud Baird Coons Henry Stanton Storrs Edith Dickson Jessie Tazewell Mrs. Amelia Hcgman Doolittle Giovanni Terzano Antoinette Beard Harroun Helen Ward Meinhard and Gertrud Jacoby

LIFE MEMBERS

Werner Abegg Mrs. Cassie Spencer Payne Frederick B. Artz Mrs. Kenneth A. Preston Mr. and Mrs. John Z. Atkins Haig M. Prince Mr. and Mrs. Carl Bacon Louise S. Richards Alfred Bader Derwent Riding Mrs. Harry E. Barnard George Bassett Roberts Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Bates Mrs. Galen Roush Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Bongiorno James A. Saalfield Mr. and Mrs. Ford E. Curtis Margaret Schauffler Mrs. Robert W. Dobbins Janos Scholz Ross Edman Mrs. George H. Seefeld Mrs. Sarah G. Epstein Mrs. Alan B. Sheldon Philip E. Foster Mrs. Alfred W. Sherman Carl R. Gerber Constance D. Sherman Mr. and Mrs. Saul R. Gilford Alice H. Simpson Erwin N. Griswold Geraldine N. Smith Mr. and Mrs. Tim Hill Mrs. Pierre R. Smith Mr. and Mrs. Joseph H. Hirshhorn Richard and Athena Spear Mrs. Irvin E. Houck Mrs. Katherine B. Spencer Mr. and Mrs. E. Robert Irwin Mr. and Mrs. Wolfgang Stechow Mr. and Mrs. Owen T. Jones Mrs. Hermann H. Thornton Ellen H. Johnson Franklin B. Toker Philip L. Kelser Frank C. Van Cleef Mrs. Anne Kendzior Clarence Ward Mr. and Mrs. Carl W. Kinney, Jr. Guy S. Wells Mr. and Mrs- Ben W. Lewis Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Wheeler Mrs. Elizabeth R. Murphy Mr. and Mrs. Dudley A. Wood Earl Newsom Barbara Wriston Mr. and Mrs. Charles Parkhurst Mr. and Mrs. David Young 44 FAMILY MEMBERS, 1972-73

John D. Baum Vee and Bill Long Ju-hsi Chou Mr. and Mrs. David Love Mr. and Mrs. Norman C. Craig Bayley and Edith Mason Dr. and Mrs. Robert R. Crawford Mr. and Mrs. Eric Nord Mr. and Mrs. Robert Dudash Carl A. and Thalia G. Peterson Mr. and Mrs. Dewey A. Ganzel, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Donald R. Reich Adele and Harvey Gittler Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Schoonmaker Nathan Greenberg Mr. and Mrs. Chester L. Shaver Edward Henderson Dr. and Mrs. Warren Sheldon Mr. and Mrs. Robert Howley Dr. and Mrs. Gaius Slosser II

SUSTAINING MEMBERS, 1972-73

Mr. and Mrs. Paul B. Arnold Donald M. Love Walter and Nancy Aschaffenburg Pauline and William Mcllrath Mr. and Mrs. David Bamberger Ann and Al MacKay Mr. and Mrs. S. R. Brittingham Mr. and Mrs. David C. Montgomery Adele H. Brown Martha Morse Jere and Katerina Bruner Mr, and Mrs. Robert H. Newton Parks and Christie Campbell John and Audrey Pearson Mr. and Mrs. Terry S. Carlton Mr, and Mrs. Gene Presti Mr. and Mrs. David W. Clark Mr. and Mrs. David C. Rankin Mr. and Mrs. Emil Danenburg Mr. and Mrs. David Segal Mrs. Stella M. Dickerman Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth W. Severens Mrs. Marian C. Donnelly Robert H. StillweU Mr. and Mrs. Fenner Douglass Harold Tower Mr. and Mrs. Robert Drummond Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Tufts Mr. and Mrs. Richard J. Dunn Mr. and Mrs. Warren F. Walker, Jr. Mr. and Mrs. Louis E. Emsheimer Zara Wilkenfeld Mrs. Janet F. Fixx Mr. and Mrs. Robert Williams Dr. C. W. Gettig Earl N. Witzler Nancy and Eric Gislason Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wood Ms. Phyllis Glazier; Mr. Jack Glazier Mr. and Mrs. James Worcester Marcia and Samuel Goldberg Winnie and Milton Yinger Richard A. Goldthwaite Mr. and Mrs. W. H. Hamilton Craig and Sherrill Harbison Charles and Elizabeth Hayford Mr. and Mrs. Richard Huber Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Jaxon Mr. and Mrs. Dale Johnson Mr. and Mrs. Flerbert F. Johnson Professor and Mrs. William E. Kennick John W. Kurtz Mr. and Mrs. George A. Lanyi In addition to the above members, there are: Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Linehan 76 annual members Mr. and Mrs. Robert Longsworth 371 student members

45 Privileges of Membership

An original print by a known artist, made exclusively for the Oberlin Friends of Art in a signed and numbered edition A copy of each issue of the Bulletin Free admission to film and concert series Free enrollment in children's Saturday art classes (for family members only — children ages 6-12) Invitations to exhibition openings, gallery talks, Baldwin lecture and visiting artist series An annual members' acquisition party, during which members purchase by vote works for the museum collection A preview of the biennial Purchase Show, offering members first choice of works of art at 10% discount A discount on museum catalogues and Christmas cards

Categories of Membership

Life $100 $1000 Family (annual) $30-$100 Sustaining (annual) $15-$100 Member (annual) $7.50-$10 Student (annual) $4-$10

A sustaining or life membership gives privileges to husband and wife, and a family membership includes all children. Membership contributions are tax deductible (less $8.00, for tangible benefits re­ ceived).

46 STAFF OF THE MUSEUM Richard E. Spear, Director Jean Kondo, Clarence Ward, Director Emeritus Assistant to the Curators Diane Tsurutani, Chloe H. Young, Curator of Art before 1800 Graduate Assistant to the Curators Margery M. Williams, Athena T. Spear, Curator of Modern Art Librarian Doris B. Moore, Floyd A. Kinnee, Museum Technician Administrative Secretary Arthur Fowls, Head Custodian

INTERMUSEUM CONSERVATORY ASSOCIATION Richard D. Buck, Director Sibylle Einbeck, Associate Conservator Delbert Spurlock, Chief Conservator Ruth Spitler, Secretary

MUSEUM PURCHASE COMMITTEE Richard E. Spear, Chairman David Alan Levine Paul B. Arnold (absent) Thalia Gouma Peterson Frederick B. Artz Kenneth W. Severens Laurine Bongiorno Athena T. Spear Richard D. Buck John R. Spencer (absent) Ju-hsi Chou Wolfgang Stechow Robert W. Fuller Mary Sturgeon Craig S. Harbison Clarence Ward Ellen H. Johnson Forbes Whiteside Michael L. Katzev (absent) Chloe H. Young

EDITOR OF THE BULLETIN MUSEUM HOURS: Wolfgang Stechow School Year: Monday through Friday 10:00 -' 12:00 A.M. (side gate) 1:30 - 4:30 and 7:00 - 9:00 P.M. Saturday PHOTOGRAPHER 10:00-12:00 A.M. (side gate) Robert Stillwell 2:00-5:30 P.M. Sunday 2:00-5:30 P.M. Summer: PUBLICATIONS Monday through Friday The Bulletin, the catalogue of the 10:00-12:00 A.M. and painting and sculpture collection, 2:00-4:00 P.M. photographs, postcards, slides, and color reproductions are on sale at Saturday and Sunday the Museum. 1:00-5:00 P.M. 47